Franklin Graham, Part 2

I’ve been thinking about my earlier post concerning Franklin Graham and his unwise words concerning Islam, the war on terror, and his favorable stance toward the use of “WMD’s” by the USA. My stance hasn’t changed much, but I’ve something to add.

To recap, I still think Graham should apologize, and should recant. I still think that someone needs to step into the public eye and voice the fact that his comments are not speaking for christendom, or even for evangelicals… his views on this issue are his. It needs to be said that a good many people whom he represents are seriously at odds with these statements.

This past week I’ve spoken critically of George Bush’s stance on the war, and I’ve been critical of Franklin Graham’s. I’m concerned that these two men who can dine together casually in friendship are public with a profession of Christ includes such an outspoken unjust violence. Of course I believe they profess the same Christ that I do, but evidently we have such divergent ideas on Jesus and war that on this issue our common ground can become hard to spot. I’m concerned that this view expressed by two professing christians in so public a forum with such great spheres of influence that it’s hard to overcome the idea that they’re speaking for all rather than just a very few.

There’s a grave danger… in the criticism and fear of Islam and the terrorists who proclaim their minority view of it, who do violence in the name of their faith, I’m wary of a pattern. I’m wary of people who see America as the hand of God, of those who would wage war against any identifiable group in the name of God, with religous fervour. After all, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction” (Pascal).

The news coverage has been interesting… Franklin Graham is presented as a “controversial” figure, and mention is regularly made of Immigration Minister Monte Solberg’s denial of entry into Canada last year of a Muslim cleric who was charged with making hateful comments toward Jews. I’m not certain those comments were any more hateful than the ones Graham has made toward Muslims, and a double standard is being questioned.

I have this, though. I like the work that Samaritan’s Purse does. It’s nonpolitical relief, it’s caring…. and I like that. One might say it’s genrous. In the interviews running on the television coverage, Franklin Graham sidesteps the question, saying he doesn’t talk about Muslims or Islam and so forth. He says, “I’m a gospel preacher.” The idea is that he’s got a gospel message, and he’s sticking with that, and he isn’t going to be sidetracked by discussing Islam. He said, “The only time I talk about that is when you people (the media) ask me about it.”

I finally saw shades of his father in him. One thing that was always admirable about Billy Graham was the way he didn’t comment about what he didn’t feel was his core message, the gospel. Abortion? Didn’t have much to say, he just wanted to talk about Jesus. Name the issue, he would rather just talk about Jesus, because that was his message… he was a gospel preacher, and he wasn’t going to be moved from that message, especially onto political topics.

I’ve thought about Billy Graham’s legacy, about how there were so many issues he could have gotten sidetracked on, but didn’t. He just stuck with the gospel. There was this one thing, though… he learned a difficult lesson early in his public career, and it had to do with politics. It’s well-known enough that most of my readers may immediately be familiar with it, or might easily find it with some digging. I understand that Billy Graham later identified this as his biggest regret in his ministry, an error in judgement.

I’ve thought about that, and about Franklin Graham. I think this error in judgement on his part is probably much greater than his Father’s, and as I’ve said, I think he should recant… but as I consider it, any comment on it now may strain the close ties he has with the Bush family and as such, it’s not a simple matter for him to just rescind the words he spoke and apologize for them. But while I recognize the difficulty, I still think he should. Perhaps after January 2009 it’ll be different. Until then, I wish he’d at least say publicly that he regrets his earlier statements. But I am willing to cut him some slack in the long haul, I suppose. His expressed views are not generous… but I’ve decided I’m still going to hope.

25 Comments

You make a good point. Franklin (and, for that matter, Dobson, Swaggart, and the like) do not speak for all of Christendom. The problem is that they have the microphone. So that is who the rest of the world hears. Now they also hear GWB and his extremely warped version of the Gospel.

One of the reasons I began blogging was because I needed to have a place where my voice could be heard. The big guns have the media wrapped up. Their voices are all over the mainstream media from Larry King to Christian radio and all one hears from them is fear of everything in the culture since about 1954 and fear of other cultures (especially Islam and there’s a love/hate relationship with Jews because of Jerusalem). Salvation cometh from the Repulican party.

We (in the US) live in a scary place and time right now. It has nothing to do with the terrorists from without and everything to do with the fear-mongers from within. Franklin needs to recant before January 2009 for the good of Christendom and the good of his countrymen. If that means sacrificing his friendship with the Bushes, sobeit. There are bigger fish to fry and if his message is the Gospel pure and simple, then recanting is the way to go, no matter who his friends are. It sets the example for what the Gospel life is.

Eric
on Sunday October 22, 2006 at 7:42 am

Brother Maynard
I read your blog as often as I am able, but being on the road often leaves me with a week or two of reading to do when I get home, so excuse me when I leave a comment on old news. But today I am up to speed on your thought provoking articles.
Usually you talk about emerging church and personal experiences, which are often a source of encouragement to this slightly astray non-labeled person who loves Jesus (and struggles very much to love others). Needless to say I am not an exemplary character of what a follower of Jesus is.
But I think this political stuff re Franki â€œGray Hamâ€? resides on the margin of your realm of expertise and I wonder why you are blogging about modern church leaders when your passion clearly lies with moving â€œChurchâ€? forward.
So I ask this. Who is the greatest danger to our way of life? It seems to me that you regard the slice of Christianity represented by GWB and FG to be more threatening than the slice of Islam represented by the Islamic terrorists. These two men see the Islamic terrorists as people who are absolutely committed to destroying Western Civilization and are fighting to for the survival of millions of people. So when FG comments about using a nuke (an idea which he hates by the way) he isnâ€™t doing this out of hatred but rather out of survival.
If we do not wage war on this evil ideology, life as we know it will cease to exist. There will be no blogs on Emerging Church issues, no freedom of speech, no exchanges of meaningful ideas, no religious freedom and no more modern church.
The upside of not fighting is that we wonâ€™t have to deal with the prevailing Christian culture of today and all Christians will be forced to chose Jesus and death or chose Islam and live a little longer on this planet and then death. We will find out who the real people of faith are and it will be life and death for us.

So my question to you is this? Is our culture or our way of life worth preserving? Is freedom of religion important? Is doing church the way we want essential to our existence?
Better yet. Is God going to use Islam to destroy our dependence on cultural excesses so that we have the opportunity to become more reliant on Him?

Eric
on Sunday October 22, 2006 at 7:54 am

Ok I read Sonja’s post after I posted my previous post. so let me comment.
She clearly belives that the ideas of GWB and FG are scarier to her than the threat of being killed by Islamic terrorists.
Sonja, it has everything to do with Islamic terrorists. The “fear-mongers” are trying to address a reality that is extremely unpleasant and while I am not sure about all their methods I do know that they are not threatening my life.
Put it this way. If the Islamic terrorists put aside all their weapons there would be peace (well at least no war). If GWB and FG dropped their weapons Western civilization would cease to exist. Maybe that’s what you want. A place where your Christianity is really tested and your faith is the only thing that keeps you alive.

Eric,”evil ideology”? Where? What? Do you mean Islam? I have the unusual context of being Christian clergy who spends probably half his time working with Muslim folk. I have yet to meet an evil one. I have yet to hear hatred spoken. Are there some who claim to be Muslim but who speak and do evil? Of course. Are there some who speak and do evil in the name of Christ? Of course. I believe the greatest threat to America lies not in the so-called Muslim extremists, but in the theocratic right which has gained such a foothold in the Bush administration. My people come from Northern Ireland. I was brought up on hatred disguising itself as Christianity. Let’s be very careful about ascribing terms like ‘evil’ to any faith community. We have a heritage of far too much bigotry, intolerance and violence to speak quickly of any other community’s excesses.

Eric, I don’t want to clog up Brother Maynard’s comment column too much. But I’m not speaking in ignorance here. My degree is in Political Science and Internation Studies with a concentration in the Middle East and I speak a smattering of Arabic. I’ve studied the Q’ran and Islam. I have friends who are Arabic. More than that, I am about to spend the day today (with my church) helping Iraqi refugees from this war move for the 18th time since they came to this country because their lives were in danger at home. They are Shia Muslims and I count them among my very good friends.

I would just point out to you that more people die each and every day in this country in automobile accidents caused by drunk drivers than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. To date that remains the only attack on our soil. If we continue to allow our freedoms to be abridged because of one attack, then, yes, the terrorists have won. Living in fear, responding in fear and allowing that fear to dictate how we live our lives means that the terrorists (not Muslims, terrorists) have won and we have given it away. I, for one, do not want that to be the case. I think we’re made of stronger stuff than that.

But beyond all of that; all the words about freedom and patriotism, there is the Gospel. The Gospel that promises peace and freedom for all who hear it and respond to it. If that Gospel is really true we must all live it out in our lives. So I will end with a quote from a book I’m currently reading (The Powers That Be by Walter Wink) and the italicized portion is mine because I think it’s pertinent to this discussion:

Jesus is not advocating nonviolence (in Matt. 5:39b-41) merely as a technique for outwitting the enemy, but as a just means of opposing the enemy in a way that holds open the possibiblity of the enemy’s becoming just also. Both sides must win. We are summoned to pray for our enemies’ transformation, and to resond to ill treatment with a love that is not only godly but also from God.

Okay, one more thing, on fear, terror, and Islam. In Montreal recently, a gunman entered a school and opened fire. The police, who have seen this before in their city, arrived on the scene within minutes. Rather than hold a standoff and negotiate as was the previously accepted tactic for this kind of thing, they entered the building, and within minutes the gunman was dead, no questions asked.

The following week, my kids, who are in a Christian school, were briefed on a new code that could be called from the PA system. They were given specific instructions on what to do if they ever heard it, and it’s not a fire drill… it’s the response to an unauthorized person being seen in the building, and it’s designed with the assumption that the person may be armed and have ill intent.

Now that’s the effect of terrorism, but it’s the fear that pervades our society, and it’s got nothing to do with Islam, as neither do the rash of school and other mass killings in public facilities that we’ve seen. Islam has become just one more thing to fear, but it’s so not about Islam. It’s just about living in fear, like back when we wondered if the Russians would drop the bomb and had drills in school to crawl under your desk, as though it would help. New threat, same fear.

A war on terrorism is a war on ghosts and shades. It’s a war on … nothing. And everything. How does one know when such a war is won? When all the terrorists are gone? dead? hidden? In my more cynical moments I think that this war is a war begun to make the president’s cronies more money. In my less cynical moments I think it’s just evil spreading fear.

But I ask you, Eric, when will this war be won?

Here’s another question … since it’s been confirmed by the CIA, the NSA and the State Department, there were no terrorists related to Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to 2003, but there are thousands now … in exactly what manner has this war protected us and our precious civilization?

Eric
on Sunday October 22, 2006 at 11:06 am

i WILL BE BACK BUT i HAVE TO GO TO CHURCH NOW.

Eric
on Sunday October 22, 2006 at 2:15 pm

The evil ideology is not the belief of the average muslim but the belief of those muslims who want to destroy the rest of humanity. I consider any ideology that only seeks to reek violence and destruction in acts of extreme hatred to be evil.
This war is unwinnable not because the enemy grows when we attack it but because we believe the lies that say this action is all th US’s fault. When we let the radical muslims get away with this victim mentality that says it is all George’s fault we fail to address the realities of what is happening in the world.
We should not make chioces based on fear but neither should we make choices out of guilt.

The hatred that Islamic terrorists have is not because of American Foreign Policy, but because the USA believes in a State of Israel. Many lives were lost in Islamic terrorist attacks before 2003 and saying that the war in Iraq caused terrorinsm is ludicrous and fails to recognize that Muslims have been using terror for a long time.

BTW, Your(BM) answers to my questions are great even if I don’t agree with a lot of it, I still am challenged to think. I also think that our civilization may not be worth preserving. I am sorry if I came off a little snotty re my wondering what you were doing in the margins.

No sweat, Eric. Reading your comment though, I might suggest that you agree FGraham should retract his statements… because he made them directed toward Islam and not toward Muslim extremists. Other evil ideologies by your definition would include Christianity — or those christians behind the crusades, the KKK, slavery, and other acts of terror wrongly undertaken in the name of God. As regards christians being critical of Islam because of Muslim extremists, we live in a glass house and shouldn’t throw stones.

I don’t think that US-ian sentiment toward Islam is a result of 9/11, though it’s obviously intensified since then. The suspicion and other negative sentiments predate 9/11. The big change though is that Americans could largely ignore it until it was on their own soil.

Sonja — it would appear you have me outclassed and out-qualified! Your comments reminded me of the confusion between American patriotism and christianity… as you say, the gospel is beyond that. And quoting Waler Wink, too — nicely done!

(Just for the record, I’ve known Eric personally for a number of years.)

Thanks, Maynard. I didn’t mean to sound like a braggart … I lost my temper. I do apologize for that.

Eric, I’d gently suggest that if you investigate the history of the region you will discover that it is our foreign policy combined with the colonial policy of Great Britain for the past 100 years that has in large part created the situation we are faced with. I say that not as a victim, but as a fearless witness to the truth. Beginning officially with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and having roots in the Zionist movement going back to the late 1800’s in Great Britain and the U.S., the combined policies of the U.S. and Great Britain in the region have fostered resentment and anger amongst the Muslim population. The Muslims have long memories which date back to the Crusades in which you may have read, we Christians do not have a record of behaving in a loving peaceful manner toward the Infidel (read your histories of the Second Crusade for examples). Remember that those who are ignorant of history are damned to repeat it. We are now burdened with a president who appears to be ignorant of history and is engaging in policy-making without considering the extremely complex relationships and cultures there.

I am not suggesting that we need to pay reparations for this. I am, however, suggesting that we Christians bear equal reponsibility for the ill will born towards us. We also bear the responsibility of behaving like small Christs towards our enemies. That means finding other means of resolving dispute than returning violence for violence. We are called not to trust in our own means for protection, but to rely upon God. Thus far I have not seen much evidence of this in many Christians in our country and it makes me very sad.

Eric
on Sunday October 22, 2006 at 6:21 pm

Tha USA and Britan have “fostered resentment and anger” is something that I completely agree with. What I don’t agree with is their willingness to use this resentment and anger to foster hatred, violence and destruction. Their victim mentality (yes they have been wronged) does not give them the right to slaughter other people groups both inside and outside of Islam.
RE FG retracting: He has a perspective about “true” Islam that includes killing the infidel who will not convert. So when he talks about Islam he is talking about a group of people who want to conquer the world by the sword. On this basis I don’t think that he should retract his statements nor are we in a position to judge him as he really does try to avoid the subject. To me this item is much ado about nothing, made up by a media that is very anti-christian and would see it tarnished at every event.
BTW, I don’t agree with using nukes or protecting our civilization to that degree. I just have enough self preservation (most likely sinfully so) that I don’t want to die in an aggressive act of violence.
RE GWB being ignorant about history I disagree. He happens to interpret events of the past through his own biases. Sonja does not bear “fearless witness to the truth” as she suggests but interprets events through her own biases. Biases and interpretations that are in conflict with GWB’s. I know that sonja way out brains and out qualifies me but just because GWB disagrees with her assessment does not mean he is ignorant or stupid.
Finally, Sonja I don’t really know you but you seem far more committed to making us be the bad guys, while giving the terrorists a pass. I want to own up what is mine to own, but I don’t want to be guilted into it.
Also, I really do believe that while some of the US’s actions have aggravated the conflict there is a strain of Islam that does want to conquer the world by whatever means necessary and would be far more aggressive if the governments of this world would (and perhaps will) relent. This danger is far greater than GWB getting his history wrong or FG painting the whole of Islam incorrectly.
An argument about ideas is not as deadly as a fight to the finish.

Eric, I think you’re maybe missing or misreading a couple of things… nobody is saying that terrorists deserve a pass, I think that suggestion is over the top. Look:
Some Muslims are terrorists.
Some terrorists are Muslims.
All Muslims are terrorists.
It’s bad logic. Yes, I know some Muslims read the Qu’ran differently than others, some feel it supports violence… like the way some people read the Bible. We might be put out if the whole of christianity were characterized by a subset which holds a minority interpretation of choice texts. Unfortunately that’s exactly what you’re doing with Islam.

I still don’t see Islam as plotting the demise of the world, even though most Islamic governments really wish the rest of the world would work the way they do… and that’s different from Western governments exactly how? I don’t buy the rhetoric.

I also don’t think that the news coverage is blown out of proportion by a media intent on scandalizing FGraham… in Winnipeg there was a protest by other christians. This is no different than so many other christians who publicly criticize one another, whether it’s Don Carson criticizing Brian McLaren or George McArthur lighing into the Vineyard or any of the other heresy-hunters out there. Maybe the media should cover the “God Hates Fags” people instead. Anyway, the media isn’t misreporting here, many people including many other christians are upset about it.

95% of terrorists are NOT Muslim … you might think they are from the media coverage, but they are not. Think of the Oklahoma City bombing, for example. Or perhaps the David Koresh debacle in Waco, Texas. The Aryan Nation is far from the only example of domestic terrorists on the FBI watch list. They are also not the only other terrorist group on the international level than Al Qaeda. That is a classic example of a red herring in an argument.

The price of freedom is extremely high and we must be willing to pay it. You are correct it’s not just ideas. I understand that very well. I’m not willing to give up my freedom to fear and gossip. Neither were my fore-fathers and mothers. If fighting and dying for my inalienable rights was good enough for them, it’s good enough for me … I won’t give them away just because some talking head tells me it’s a good idea.

But all of this is an aside (a straw man if you will), as Christians, we are called to a higher road. No matter what terrible choices/decisions our Christian ancestors may have made, in the here-and-now we are required to live as little Christs. We are required by Jesus (not the laws of the U.S. or Canada) to forgive our enemies seventy times seven, to love them (not kill them and not seek vengence upon them – Romans 12:19-21), we are required to seek their redemption as fellow children of God. The example set for us by the Amish a couple of weeks ago was breathtaking.

As for GWB’s record on his knowledge of history … it is a matter of public record, not a matter of interpretation. Simply put, his behavior indicates that he is unaware (as most of our public is not aware) that we put Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq in the early 1980’s to counter the reactionary immams in Iran. We created a monster we couldn’t control. The methods of empire are complex and dangerous and not to be undertaken by the foolhardy.

Eric
on Monday October 23, 2006 at 10:10 am

Sonja, my logic is flawed?
Stating that 95% of terrorists are Muslim does not make my logic flawed. My statistics and facts may be incorrect but my logic is safe (not something I hold near and dear but I digress).
I have just done about 15 minutes of research trying to find out what an actual percentage may be. You are right it is probably not 95% and my %age is skewed because it is based on my bias. However, there is no red herring here. The vast majority of active and violent terrorists have an Islamic elememt to them. The other main group would then be Marxist groups, and somewhere else on the list would be a smattering of “Christian” terrorist groups.
So while my logic is flawed and fishy yours is downright confusing. One paragraph talks about fighting for freedom, yes you would even die for freedom. But the next paragraph talks about living to a higher calling and forgiving/ loving our enemies. Explain to me how you can have it both ways?
BTW, I wish I could have more amish in me. I am not so good at that forgiveness thing.
RE GWB and his knowledge. I am sure that he knows that the US put him in power. And how exactly did the US “create” a monster. By giving him power? They gave JFK, LBJ, RR, and every US President power and they didn’t become a monsters. Saying that Sadam was monster created by the US neglects Sadam’s personal ability to chose between good and evil. Sadam made many choices in becoming the evil that he is today. Saying we created a monster is akin to saying he had no choice and he is only acting as any victim would given the same circumstances. Even victums have a choice in how they would respond. Again look at the Amish. Saying we created a monster only fosters the victim mentality that plagues Islamic terrorists (we actually use victimization to justify sinful behavior in just about everyone).

Hey I am really enjoying this. Hope I don’t make you to mad.
Eric

Eric
on Monday October 23, 2006 at 10:23 am

Oops
Earlier I referred to Brother Maynard as BM. This is not to be confused with BM =Bowel Movement, nor was implying that Bro May is full of …. Sorry about that. What is the best short acrynom that I can use for Brother Mayhem, I mean Maynard.

Hey … I’m having fun too! As long as (hmmm … an acronym) Bro.M. doesn’t mind the space?? I’m glad to know you’re not angry … text is an incomplete medium.

Let me try to explain myself as succinctly as possible. The way I look at this, there are really several separate issues here and that is possibly why you see my argument/logic as confusing. I’ve separated my patriotism from my Christianity. So … while on one hand I would be willing to fight and die for my political freedom. On the other and at a higher level, I would more likely be looking for a way to confound my oppressors and be seeking their redemption. Think of it almost in terms of Mazlow’s Heirarchy of Needs … only it’s not needs it’s ummm … something else. It’s a heirarchy of responses, perhaps.

I think what I’m saying is this: While I may be willing to fight and die for my country, Jesus calls me to something else entirely and that needs to be my primary response. So, on one hand I think I disagree on an interpretive level with your response to the war on terror. Your response (as I read it) is that we are right to make these changes to make ourselves potentially safer from terrorists. My counter-point to that is that we can never be safe enough … there will always be evil doers who will manipulate our rules and regulations. Eventually we must trust the good that is in most people. IF it comes down to it, I would fight another war on our soil to protect our freedoms. You would (as I read your posts) prefer to prevent a war by keeping danger out, theoretically. But, for me, all of this is in the political realm and I separate that and hold it in a lower space than the spiritual realm.

So, what would really come first for me would be to practice forgiveness. It would be to practice grace. Not the kind of forgiveness and grace that allows evil to have it’s way, but the kind that stops evil in it’s tracks. The kind that redeems people and restores them. I don’t know exactly what that would look like. But I do know this … right now in the Middle East there are thousands of Muslim mothers and fathers who are weeping because their sons and daugthers are marching off to terrorist camps, lured by the empty promises of the radical imams. Those moms and dads have nothing to fight back with. They have nothing to tell their children about the West and Christianity that is different from what the imams are saying. But imagine what they might be able to say to their children if someone like Franklin Graham recanted and forgave the attackers. What might happen if he went on Al Jazeera and expressed regret for his words in 2001? That alone might be enough to restrain a great evil in the world. That act would BE the Gospel in action. It wouldn’t change our military course of action (and shouldn’t), but it might give those parents some tools to keep their children home and away from the camps. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. I don’t mean we should roll over, but I do mean we should cease acting like a hammer in the world.

You are right … it was a poor choice of words to say “we” created the monster that was Saddam Hussein. He had the ability to choose good or evil and chose evil. I will say tho, that we pretty consistently did nothing to restrain his evil choices, even when we promised we would (witness the Kurdish extermination in the wake of the Gulf War).

So long as you’re both happy, carry on — I don’t mind the space or the bandwidth. I notice you’re taking shots on your own blog as well now! Definitely a hot issue.

I liked your last comment, Sonja… about the optics of Franklin Graham on Al Jazeera being the Gospel. It’s an arresting picture.

-Bro.M.

Eric
on Monday October 23, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Bro.M. so long as he doesn’t hyphenate with A. Seltzer. That would be nauseating.

I think that I can agree with your latest comment to a much greater degree than anything else you have written. I guess I just don’t have the same belief in the power of forgiveness that you do ( I am really not an exemplary follower of Jesus). Nor do I share your optimism that forgiveness is a language that the evil ones can actually hear. Confounding redemption doesn’t work against people who would prefer to kill you before the talk to you.

I do like your points about the West finding more ways to give credence to the Gospel being a better way. And anything that would keep youth from joining terrorist groups would be a good thing.

Getting back to FG recanting, I think there is a very sinful part of me that does not want him to recant because I tend to believe that true Islam is a religion of violence. Not a popular belief and one that is most likely based in fear and not love.

Anyway, neither FG or his father have ever represented me. So I don’t share your view that he recant for the sake of Christendom any more than I need Pat Roberts or even David Koresh to recant. People tend to believe what the want to believe, facts and logic place a distant second to rumors and emotion when it comes to assertaining truth.

Let me put it this way. I believe (most likely sinfully so) that even if FG does recant it will have no impact on the Muslim world. They are far to entrenched in their beliefs regarding “Christians” that his recanting would only be scoffed at. The only kind of forgiveness that will have impact is personal human to human contact forgiveness. We followers of Jesus really love people they come in contact with on a daily basis then the world will change. The words of religious leaders carry very little weight as far as I am concerned.

Is Calasirian Sonja? I guess that is why I got the Calasirian Blog when I clicked on Sonja’s name. Thought that was a glich in BroM’s wordPress thingy.

Yes, Calacirian is me (sonja). I used to blog with my real name and then had a nasty bout with depression that masqueraded as paranoia with panic attacks and started writing under a pseudonym (spelling?). I’m probably past that, but now I’m fond of the pseudonym, so I keep it on my blog.

Anyway … back to the subject at hand. Here’s why I think that FG or any one of our Christian leaders could make a difference in the Muslim world. It’s because the Muslims are not all of one mind (anymore than we Christians are all of one mind). Just as FG doesn’t speak for you (or me, for that matter) the radical imams that we hear do NOT all speak for them. Just as we are shamed when someone shoots their mouth off in public and says things for Jesus that are terribly UN-Christian (as when Jimmy Swaggart offered to take out a contract on the president of Venezuela), so are they when their religious leaders say and do things that are in direct contradiction to the teachings of Mohammed and the Q’ran … and you’ll have to trust me, this terrorism and all of it is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Q’ran. Islam may not be as peaceful as Christianity, but it’s nowhere near as violent as it’s been painted, either. There is just as much emphasis on forgiveness and mercy as we are taught. Most Muslims are bewildered by the version of Islam that is being broadcast to the world by the terrorists. They don’t understand it anymore than we do.

But here’s the thing … even tho FG (or Dobson or Swaggart or the like) doesn’t speak for all of Christendom as far as we’re concerned. They DO as far as the Muslim community is concerned. So if one of them were to step forward to make amends … you’re right, Muslim leaders would like scoff at him. But … the little guys … the moms and dads, and all the people watching would begin to sit up and think.

My point is … something’s got to change. We’ve (collective humanity) been beating our heads against this same wall for hundreds of years now with little to no change in the situation. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result … well … by our own definition, we all might be described as insane. We all keep doing the same things over and over again to one another and think the results are going to be different.

I do like your point, BTW, about having an impact with personal human to human contact. I also think that’s a way we can all make a difference in our communities and, thus, the world. That linking together across cultures in our neighborhoods does much to eradicate prejudice and fear.

grant
on Monday October 23, 2006 at 5:33 pm

FG wrote a letter to the editor in today’s winnipeg free press. To summarize, he won’t recant because he claims he never said what others claim he said. I am glad that FG took the opportunity to speak for himself, perhaps we believed too quickly a quote that according to FG is inaccurate.
As well, to disqualify/villify (maybe too strong a term) a christian celebrity (for lack of a better term) on the basis of one particular belief ( even as significant as this one is to many)is quite a high standard. I am amazed that God is involved with any of us, including me and FG.
The people I interact with don’t know FG and don’t care about FG. Most people don’t trust the media and see/beleive what they want to see anyway. So, if they heard about FG and this debate/controversy, they would believe what they already believed beforehand.

Eric … safe travels and thanks for the good conversation. You’ve given me lots to think over as well.

Brother Maynard, thanks for posting the FG’s letter and his previous comments. I hadn’t heard them in context so I was glad to read that CNN transcript. AGLotz does have amazing perspective. On the other hand, FG is approximately my age (and your age too if I’ve done the math correctly ;-) ). Probably about the same age as his father was when he recanted on the Watergate statements, and certainly of an age where the hard edges have been rubbed off and some grace has filled in the gaps. I was glad to see him making a distinction between the terrorists and the greater Muslim community in his original remarks … so he at least has that in his favor. However, sidestepping on the nukes issue is not pretty and doesn’t lend him much credibility in any community.

Rev Charles Smith
on Tuesday May 29, 2007 at 11:34 pm

I find some of these answers truly amazing. Here are some of the brightest minds in the “emerging church” debating what a conservative preacher has said. I can’t wait to see what kind of evangelism you folks promote. Didn’t the Apostle Paul say, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:” (KJV: Phil 2:5) It sounds more like the articles here are on politics and faith.
Whether Brother Graham said those things or not about Islam does not matter. Someone may say, “Why don’t we all just get along?” Because we can’t. CHrist came to bring a sword, not peace. (Matthew 10:32-42: KJV) When are we as those that say we belong to the Lord Jesus Christ quit the arguing and press on to see souls saved into the Kingdom? I do realize I never have any good things to say, because I am not an “ear-tickler”. Hopefully, Franklin Graham never becomes one.

Rev Charles Smith
on Tuesday May 29, 2007 at 11:34 pm

I find some of these answers truly amazing. Here are some of the brightest minds in the “emerging church” debating what a conservative preacher has said. I can’t wait to see what kind of evangelism you folks promote. Didn’t the Apostle Paul say, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:” (KJV: Phil 2:5) It sounds more like the articles here are on politics and faith.
Whether Brother Graham said those things or not about Islam does not matter. Someone may say, “Why don’t we all just get along?” Because we can’t. CHrist came to bring a sword, not peace. (Matthew 10:32-42: KJV) When are we as those that say we belong to the Lord Jesus Christ quit the arguing and press on to see souls saved into the Kingdom? I do realize I never have any good things to say, because I am not an “ear-tickler”. Hopefully, Franklin Graham never becomes one.

I’m saddened that you feel Christ’s example means you needn’t even try to get along with the likes of me, or I suppose that the Crusades were justifiable. I don’t read Jesus that way. But maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, thanks for visiting. Bless you.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Emerging Church Blogs - Related: The Gospel of Peace & the Not-So-Generous Modern Evangelist The next Billy Graham? Billy Graham: A…